Moderate Outrage
- Jan Carey
- 14 hours ago
- 7 min read
Updated: 5 hours ago
by Leslie Carey
Creator: Morton Broffman | Credit: Getty Images
Copyright: 1965 Morton Broffman
When many Americans think about protesting injustice, we immediately think of an image similar to above. The iconic Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, linked arm in arm with other recognizable freedom leaders, quietly, peacefully walking down streets of the Jim Crow era.
Here is the question I pose: were they afforded the guaranteed safety of their local police? I think we know the answer to this question is, “no”. When people took to the streets to march for their civil rights, they literally put their life on the line; there was no safety net to catch them. In fact, despite these non-violent walks, many turned violent (by aggressive police) because the very act of this was threatening.
To give a synopsis about the Jim Crow Era, something I personally never lived through: Between the 1870s and the 1960s, Jim Crow laws upheld a vicious racial hierarchy in southern states, circumventing protections that had been put in place after the end of the Civil War... The discriminatory laws denied black people their rights, subjected them to public humiliation, and perpetuated their economic and educational marginalization. Anyone who challenged the social order faced mockery, harassment, and murder. The Jim Crow laws and system of etiquette were undergirded by violence, real and threatened. 1
Black people who violated Jim Crow norms, for example, drinking from the white water fountain or trying to vote, risked their homes, their jobs, even their lives. White people could physically beat black people with impunity. People who entered into an interracial relationship, drank from the wrong water fountain, sat in the wrong place, looked at a white woman the wrong way, or used the wrong bathroom, were breaking the law.
Racism was not deconstructed after the Civil Rights movement, as racism is woven into the structure of our nation. It’s stitched into the police culture, our prison system, the economic structure, healthcare plan, the education strategy, and our overall societal environment. Different Americas exist; those that feel contempt with there being enough for what they see as freedom and constitutional rights, and others that continue to fight on a daily basis for liberation.
Why am I bringing this up? This is the foundation I am comparing with recent protests and rallies being held. Ahead of our local No Kings Rally, there were repeated concerns I heard from white folks, “Will it be safe to march?” and the response was a general reassurance of there being local law enforcement to protect us, and our constitutional right to exercise our first amendment, that is of course as long as no one got out of line.
This was a No Kings rally, a rally against fascism. This was a call to unite as a people and send a message not just to Trump, but the world, that we don’t want a Nazi Germany, or a dictatorship. As heavy as this growing situation has become watching masked men kidnap people from their work, court hearings, and homes, not everyone is on the same page with the seriousness of the direction this nation is headed towards. In some cases, these rally’s were turned into a sideshow. I saw one protest announcement that had activities for kids. Costume contests. Carnival games…Because this administration was such a “clown show.” This is what I describe as performative. In my mind I saw a banner that could have read: “Outrage(ous) fun for the whole family!”
Peaceful Protest
There is a researched theory, by Erica Chenoweth, about needing 3.5% of a society to participate in a protest to execute societal change. (So with our population that’s about 11 million people) This, however, is a rule of thumb that reflects how the majority of people are feeling, not a means to create actual change. 2
Studies also showed that participation in protests does not itself lead to political change. “Movement researchers have found that the majority of protests post-1960s and leading up to the 2000s were placid, routine, non-disruptive to the status quo, and initiated by the advantaged. Many defenders of nonviolent discipline insist that nonviolent action is not inherently placid, but rather can be both highly creative and deeply disruptive and is often initiated by oppressed communities. That is all true. But Sharp's theory, and applications like ‘the 3.5 percent rule,’ make it difficult to distinguish between them. And the fact remains that most nonviolent protest actions these days are highly routine and non-disruptive.
Even when they are disruptive, the emphasis on escalating protest as a goal in itself limits our horizon of how people create social and political change.”
“It would indeed be comforting to know that peaceful protest is the most effective way we can engage in political struggle. Many people are deeply attached to believing that nonviolence works better and do not want to see that view challenged. But if the field of research that dominates study and circulation of movement strategy is getting it wrong, that is a problem worth pushing through discomfort to address. Arguments for the superior efficacy of nonviolence are simply not supported by evidence…” 3
Does this mean when white America comes out to protest, they still prioritize adhering to following socially acceptable rules ahead of their intolerance for injustice?
We likely agree that race is a social construct in itself, acknowledge systemic racism built into our infrastructure, and therefore continue to have groups of people that spend their entire existence under oppression and must abide a much harsher overall life experience. 4 Still, we scold those that dare challenge the oppressor if it’s in a manner we consider too hostile. (#colinkaepernick)
Is it possible that we have been so conditioned to whisper our outrage that we are only outraged on our own behalf, and not really to make any change?
My opinion is this: unless more white people peel back the layers of their conditioning, use the safety of their privilege, and rapidly at that, we will give this racist, fascist, administration permission to take over because we only want to stay in the lines that were drawn. Unless more white people unpack their own biases and understanding of historical movements in our country, and lock step with the oppressed, we will continue to side with the oppressor.
Martin Luther King said, “I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. The Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride towards freedom is not the Klu Klux Planner, but the white moderate.”
What is headed our way?
Where do people think this administration, with 4000 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines in California, along with January 6th insurrectionists, Oath Keepers & Proud Boys being a part of ICE & DHS, rounding up brown people and kidnapping them, is going? Do we really think there’s going back to a “normal”? And was our “normal” way of life really working for everyone anyways?
Why should we only be enraged peacefully? The opposite of peace isn’t a riot. The opposite of deconstructing the problems in our social and economic structure isn’t anarchy. Why should we only be outraged by means of singing a song, making a chant or waving a sign? Does this challenge the status quo? While these things provide a sense of unity, is this enough to make a difference when Trump’s foot soldiers show up in our community?
Now, am I suggesting little old ladies put themselves in harm's way? NO.
What I am suggesting is that more white people, (specifically white, hetero, able-bodied men), consider doing more than wearing a politically snarky t-shirt when they’re out and about. What I am suggesting is that more white people need to at least have a conversation with themselves, family, friends, co- workers, and neighbors about what they will do to prepare if ICE, or martial law shows up in their town, or their neighborhood.
That might look like hiding from them, or filming them, or offering your home to others to seek shelter from them. What we can’t continue to do is ignore what is happening in front of our eyes. By all means, if hiding is what feels right for you, then at least you know who you are, but telling other people that they can’t defend themselves, or those that are the target of ICE, because you think that is not obeying law and order, is also being on the side of fascism.
Great Civil Rights leader Malcom X said, “I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black man’s problem just to avoid violence.”
Conflict avoidance.
We still have folks that struggle to rock the boat. We still have folks that want to make sure they’re seen in a delicate light. And of course, we have folks that still want to center party affiliation over justice. What I mean by this, is that I have heard white people saying that being “too angry” right now doesn’t “win over hearts and minds” for 2026 and getting more Democrats elected. When is a good time to be angry?
Why does it consistently seem like it’s the comfortable white moderate that gets to dictate and tone police? These are some of the same people that throw criticism over Jay Carey being evicted out of Chuck Edwards townhall, because he was being "disrespectful." (Despite Chuck Edwards having a career making legislative choices that has closed WNC rural hospitals which has lead to deaths, or slashing veteran care, which will lead to deaths, there's still people that choose to be obedient, avoid hostile confrontation, and try to silence those that challenge the real danger.) 5
We are witnessing in real time exactly what Rev. Dr. King eluded to, that it is the white moderate more concerned with their obedience, and good manners, over anything else.
Advising others to defend themselves is about empowering them to protect themselves from potential aggression, not about encouraging them to be aggressive themselves. Telling those that are not the prime target of a racist or fascist injustice (aka white cis men) to be accomplices in actively resisting the terror showing up in our towns, is perhaps the main way to dismantle these situations. Fighting back might have to look like fighting back. Without making a ‘call’ for a path only of violence, it is a call for deeper engagement, to protect the vulnerable, and for shedding illusions about what resistance looks like.
My ask is that more white people get comfortable being outraged beyond a strongly worded bumper sticker. We cannot bubble wrap democracy.
Resit&Persist.
Power to the People.
Footnotes
2 Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Comments